Met Police to probe claims Andrew's protection officers 'turned blind eye' during Epstein island trips
Andrew, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was stripped of his Royal title last year after the posthumous publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, in which she claimed she had sex with Andrew on Epstein’s private island
The Metropolitan Police is looking into claims that close protection officers assigned to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor ‘wilfully turned a blind eye’ during visits to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein's private island.
Listen to this article
LBC has spoken to a former senior Met protection officer who claims certain members of the Royalty and Special Protection Command (RaSP) became “too close” to the Royal Family and “may have withheld information” from the force about what happened on Little Saint James island, which was owned by Epstein, in the US Virgin Islands.
Several women have claimed they were abused by Epstein when they were teenagers on Little Saint James, known to locals as "paedophile island”.
Andrew, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was stripped of his Royal title last year after the posthumous publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, in which she claimed she had sex with Andrew on Epstein’s private island.
The former protection officer claimed Andrew’s protection team travelled with Andrew to the private island on at least two occasions, including one travelling on Epstein’s private jet.
Read more: Andrew met model on taxpayer-funded China trip as 'fixer' sent photos to Epstein
In an exclusive interview, the former officer, whose identity we are protecting, told LBC: “The big question for me is what Andrew’s protection team witnessed on Epstein Island.
“I’m not suggesting they definitely witnessed any criminality from Andrew, but there was concern that certain members of the royal protection team wilfully turned a blind eye to what was happening on the island.”
The Met says the force is looking into specific allegations about members of the RaSP team.
The former protection said members of the Royal Protection Unit were “terrified” to report the behaviour of any members of the Royal Family as officers who had filed reports in the past were removed from RaSP and “put back in uniform” as a punishment.
He said: “There were real concerns that for a certain period of time, in the late 90s and early noughties, the royalty protection team became too close to their principals.
“Due to the nature of the job, royalty protection officers were often assigned to the same principal for many years, so it’s no wonder they became close.
“But I certainly thought that a line was crossed to the point that we were concerned that information was being withheld from the police. They seemed more loyal to the Royal Family than to the Met - and that’s wrong.
“We used to say they were ‘more royal than the Royals’. Some of them started to wear signet rings and talking and behaving more like members of the Royal Family than a police officer. They seemed to get lost in that life.
“The Royalty Unit were terrified of reporting any questionable behaviour from the Royals. There were occasions in the past where an officer reported the behaviour of a royal and the next day they were removed from the unit and put back in uniform.”
Earlier this month, Thames Valley Police said the force is reviewing allegations Epstein provided Andrew with a woman to have sex with at the Royal Lodge in 2010.
The force is also “assessing” allegations published in the Epstein Files that Andrew shared confidential material with Epstein while he was the UK’s trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.
King Charles said he would support the police investigation.
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said: "Protection officers are held to the same high standards of professional behaviour as all police officers.
“At this time, we have not identified any wrongdoing by any protection officers in relation to these matters. However, initial enquiries into these specific allegations have begun so we can establish the facts.
“We would encourage any former officers with relevant information to come forward. Should any new allegations come to light these will be assessed in the usual way. This includes any misconduct or criminal matters. It would be inappropriate for us to comment further while other enquiries related to these matters are ongoing.”